Press Release

11th February 2010

Inclusive Church welcomes the vote by the Church of England's General Synod to extend pension rights beyond the legal minimum for civil partners. The motion was carried by a clear majority in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity. The debate was characterised by a desire to show that the church can act justly and generously in support of those in civil partnerships.

Revd. Canon Giles Goddard, Chair of Inclusive Church said: "This vote underlines Archbishop's Rowan Williams' earlier comments and clearly demonstrates that the Church of England is opposed to all forms of homophobia. I hope this will be the beginning of a new openness towards LGBT people in the church.”

Revd Mark Bratton, proposer of the motion said:

"This unexpected result will encourage those who have given their lives to supporting those in ministry that the church values their commitment and sacrifice.”

The motion:"That this Synod request the Archbishops' Council and the Church of England Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the rules governing the clergy pension scheme in order to go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and provide pension benefits to be paid to the surviving civil partners of deceased clergy on the same basis as they are currently paid to surviving spouses.”

Voting: Bishops 12 for 2 against 3 abstain

Clergy 97 for 23 against 10 abstain

Laity 78 for 59 against 9 abstain

More information contact: Revd Canon Giles Goddard 07762 373 674

Revd Mark Bratton 0754 060 4225

ends

I support this motion. But to explain why, I would like to talk first about the wider context in which we find ourselves. . Coming to the end of my first Synod I've been honoured and humbled to be part of such a wide range of debates. But it does, nevertheless, seem to me that there's a sort of cancer affecting the Church of England, something which is running through our life and debilitating all that we try to do. It's not the presence of lesbian and gay people in loving relationships throughout the church, nor is it the opposition to that - no, it's the argument around all this. It's been going on for thirty years now, and it comes out in all sorts of different and unhelpful ways. It comes out, for instance, in the agitation in the House of Lords about the Equalities Bill. Whatever the bishops may have intended , and I acknowledge the very real concerns about religious freedom, the result of their activities was to reconfirm in the public mind the connection between Christianity and homophobia - not surprisingly, because the churches do have a history in this area. It comes out in tensions within the Anglican Communion. It was clearly the elephant in the room in our debate yesterday about ACNA, and we might have had a more realistic debate if we'd been able to acknowledge that. It comes out again and again in the lives of those of us trying to do good work in local parishes - I'm based just across the river in Waterloo, and we struggle to engage with institutions like the National Theatre and the South Bank Centre largely because of the church's attitudes to human sexuality.

We are forfeiting our right to speak on any moral question or question of justice, as anything we say is undermined by the public perception of the church's attitude on these matters. To be clear- the perception of homophobia in the church is deeply impeding our mission.

This motion gives us a chance to make a fresh start; to act with generosity, and to begin to undo the damage which has been done. We're all getting tired of this discussion, and I honour the Archbishop's words on Tuesday. But it's not going to go away until we find a way of making progress. At the moment we're locked in an uneasy stalemate, for which we must all bear some responsibility. So we need to find a new way - a way based on much deeper respect for one another's views, for acknowledgement of their Biblical and faithful roots and the sincerity and deeply known Christianity across the spectrum.

We certainly need, now, leadership from the House of Bishops, reflecting the various views which I know are there but which we hear very little. Above all, we need to rediscover, in this area, the notion that Anglicanism is a community of civilised disagreement.

It's a question, in the end, of mission. About the face we present to the world. There's nothing clever or countercultural about resisting the love of God - and that's how it comes across.

So, now, turning to the motion - I know that there are people in this room for whom civil partnerships are an anathema. There are others whose lives have been transformed by the ceremony, and who are deeply regretful that the church does not yet offer a way to celebrate that before God. This motion isn't about approval or disapproval of civil partnerships - it's about justice, generosity and care. If we pass it, we won't be giving approval to these relationships, but we'll be reflecting and celebrating the Anglican way for the sake of mission.

On so many other issues - the remarriage of divorced people, for example, or the admission of children to communion, or worship, or the wording of the Lord's Prayer - over and over again we've learnt how to live alongside each other, as I hope we will over women bishops. It's the parable of the wheat and the tares - both grow until we know the truth. We in Inclusive Church, of which I'm chair, are deeply committed to making that happen. One of my delights is speaking to some- distressingly few but some - evangelical and conservative brothers and sisters, and acknowledging the depth of our mutual attachment within the same church.

And so I will vote for the motion. First, because it's right. There is no justification for our treating the permanent, stable and faithful partners of clergy any differently to how we treat their spouses, and it's important to acknowledge that.

And, second, because this gives us an opportunity to be generous, and to send a message to those we serve. We are, as I say, undermining our mission at the moment - we need to demonstrate that we do want to live and work alongside one another for the Reign of God and in the name of justice and love. We're not talking about very much money; and the symbolism of this would far outweigh the monetary value. So I urge you to support the motion.